Perhaps you could stick to facts rather than making 'appeal to authority' arguments based on imaginary personas. That this imaginary legal expert character gets the law wrong is quite funny though.
Lawyers and judges frequently disagree with each other. In the Supreme Court on hearing the same case, judgments are more often not unanimously carried than they are.
If you think about what I do write, I tend to argue based on international and human rights legislation, and on the decisions made by the courts. I am obliged to follow the rulings of the courts as we all are, that does not preclude the idea that I or any other lawyer can take a professional view of it.
At the present time, the case of Christine Goodwin still holds, therefore that is the law at its most supreme level in the UK. People are free to disagree that it is good law, and I have no difficulty with that.